Some very disturbing answers:

In an interview with the Financial Times, Anthony Lake, a former US national security adviser who has worked with Mr Obama since the start of his campaign, also urged the US to learn lessons from its traumatic withdrawal from Vietnam regarding pulling out of Iraq. “The most dangerous crisis we are going to face potentially in the next three to 10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon,” he said. “If I were the Europeans I would much rather put on the table more sanctions, together with bigger carrots, and have that negotiation than I would face that crisis down the road.”

Mr Obama and his advisers stress the Democratic candidate’s readiness to sit down with Iranian leaders without ­conditions. “Unless you assume that [Iranian negotiators] have IQs less than those of eggplants, they are not likely to make major concessions for the privilege of speaking with us. So the question is: what is your strategy for the talks?” Mr Lake said. “Do you believe that simply sanctioning them can drive them into concessions before you talk, or do you believe that you need to have the sanctions there as a stick at the heart of negotiations?”

So we learn Obama is once again in favor of meeting with Iran without preconditions and that one of his top advisers doesn't think Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. We also learn that Lake doesn't seem to know that diplomats have been promising Iran more and more carrots over the last five years just to negotiate. There has only been one precondition: Iran had to suspend its uranium enrichment for the duration of talks. Can the Obama campaign cite some critical carrot, unknown to the world, that would persuade Iran to negotiate? Can it explain what effect sanctions could possibly have at this point given how little time they have to work?